The White House has an oval room, designed with cunning care. So any wily president who happens to be resident could never be cornered there. – E. Y. Harburg, “White House”
This quote directly correlates to the international controversy involving President Ronald Reagan during his term and how he managed to escape impeachment. In November 1986, President Ronald Reagan betrayed his fellow countrymen by initiating and leading the bartering of military arms to the Iranians, an avowed enemy of the United States. This was the start of the Iran-Contra Affair, in which the United States Presidential administration was discovered to have illegally sold weapons to Iran for the release of hostages. The U.S. then used the money to help the Contras, an anti-communist guerrilla movement in Nicaragua, who were guilty of human rights abuses. Reagan lied about the scandal, stating on national television that he had no knowledge of the criminal transaction. He was an unsatisfactory President because he failed to uphold the high moral standards inclusive with being placed in such an eminent position. People sworn into office should maintain a certain, albeit high, state of integrity and honor.
The Iran-Contra scandal came to light when a Lebanese newspaper published the wrongdoings on November 3, 1986, after a plane full of U.S. weaponry was brought down over Nicaragua. About 10 days after the incident, President Reagan announced that the U.S. had exchanged military arms for money, but yet still denied that it was for the return of American hostages (Cohen and Mitchell 195). He officially called the scandal the “Iran-Contra so-called affair” and states that it was not a scandal, and never at any time did we view this as trading weapons for hostages (Brinkley, par. 1). He continued to claim that his administration would never respond to terrorist demands, nor would he make deals.
On November 13, the President made even more false statements and misled the general public into thinking that the scandal was non-existent (Cohen and Mitchell 195). President Reagan initially asserted that everybody misconstrued it, that “we were trading, as a ransom, hostages for arms” (Brinkley, par. 7). However, despite Reagan’s early claim that the largest shipment of arms was only a planeload, it was later brought to light that over a year’s time, the U.S. shipped Iran 2,004 anti-tank missiles, 120 anti-aircraft missiles, and other various spare missile parts (Brinkley, par. 5). In the end, for all of that, only two hostages were ever released (Brinkley, par. 7).
The problem with this controversy is that, under the Arms Export Control Act, Congress is supposed to be advised anytime that the President transfers more than $14 million worth of arms to another country. The arms sold to Iran far exceeded this amount (Cohen and Mitchell 12). The second problem with the operation was that the CIA was directly used without the consent of Congress to carry out the selling of the weapons. This is not allowed unless the President finds the situation to be an immediate threat to national security (Cohen and Mitchell 13).
After the controversy became known to the public, the leaders of the Senate, Robert Byrd and Robert Dole, assembled a group of officials to investigate (Cohen and Mitchell 16). The special board became known as the Tower Commission, named after one of the lead members, former Senator John Tower. Their main mission was to evaluate the National Security Council and report back to the President.
The main findings of the Tower Commission were that there were four key players involved in the scandal, including the President. The other three were Admiral John M. Poindexter, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver L. North, and Robert C. McFarlane (Engelberg, par. 2). North was said to be the main leader in the diversion of money from the Iran arms sales to the Nicaraguan rebels, also known as the Contras (Engelberg, par. 2). This was an attempt to help the Contras, who also trafficked large quantities of cocaine, fight the Nicaraguan government. The Reagan Administration’s desire to help the Contras was brought on by the notion that they were more sympathetic to the United States, and the Contras also wished to overthrow the Nicaraguan officials.
The lead suspect who was actually directly involved in the trading was Lieutenant Colonel North, a U.S. Marine. In early 1985, North sent a letter to the Contra leader informing him that $20 million would be deposited in a Swiss bank account, and urged him not to spend it all at once (Draper 46). North wrote, “Please do not in any way make anyone aware of the deposit. Too much is becoming known by too many people. The Congress must believe that there continues to be an urgent need for funding” (Draper 46). In the courtroom, North put on a show of being a sleek warrior, a top-gun Marine (Cohen and Mitchell 197). He was attempting to win people over with his time-honored Marine traditions of honor, courage, and commitment. North stated that he was not in immediate contact with the President on the matter, but instead, Poindexter was the President’s liaison regarding the exchange of arms (Cohen and Mitchell 191). Despite this, North definitely had some sort of connection with the President. A statement furthering the possibility of a relationship between North and Reagan was declared when North boasted that he would take a spear in the chest for Ronald Reagan (Cohen and Mitchell 196). Surely, a man who would die for another would never say anything slanderous towards him. Perhaps Reagan was more guilty than North was letting on.
John Poindexter was no more clear on his part in the scandal than North. During Poindexter’s public testimony before the Tower Commission, Poindexter said 184 times that he could not recall the events about his dealings in the affair (Cohen and Mitchell 195).
One of the more suspicious facts concerning the calumny was when no more than two weeks after the affair became known to the public, President Reagan officially stated that he doubted any laws were broken and claimed that he wouldn’t rule out the possibility that he may pardon the main suspects involved (“Unthinkable”, par. 1). He also disparaged the Congressional investigating committees for producing a mouse; in other words, someone to blame (“Unthinkable”, par. 1). Any President in his or her right mind would never pre-pardon someone when so little is known about a case. This was a highly suspicious move that immediately turned many heads once Reagan announced his possible actions.
President Reagan clearly ignored his moral obligation to the United States by knowingly allowing the laws to be broken during his term in office. He tolerated an unacceptable environment and misled the public in his statements about his subordinates and never once condemned their actions (Rosenbaum, par. 3). He also abdicated his “moral and legal responsibility” to adhere to his Constitutional oath to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Rosenbaum, par. 2). President Reagan definitely failed to uphold his pledge to the constituents that put him into office.
New questions were raised, especially concerning the system of checks and balances that are supposed to keep the three branches of government in control of one another. The President should never have been allowed to sell arms to a foreign land without the consent from Congress. Controlling covert actions must start with knowledge on the part of Congress (Cohen and Mitchell 287). Likewise, he never informed the American citizens of his actions or made any attempt to gain empathy for what his administration was doing. The most unfortunate of the wrongdoings is that the legislative and executive branches failed to work together. Even if one were to see what the President did as being “morally decent”, the United States government is still not working as a whole.
In 1992, President George W. Bush pardoned six people involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, including one of the lead players, Robert C. MacFarlane (“Pardons”). In a way, this was almost like sweeping water under the bridge, as if President Bush were almost doing Ronald Reagan-a long-time friend-a favor by slyly pardoning all persons involved in the incident. Please note that Bush was the Vice President to President Reagan during this reign. This is evidence of the fact that even though President Reagan was heavily guilty of his knowledge of the crimes, he was still able to escape unscathed under the radar.
A main issue with the Iran-Contra scandal is that it deeply involves a compromise in the integrity of the United States honor system. Morals are lost in a country when even the President cannot embrace them. The President doesn’t have to be perfect, but his or her mistakes should not breach an entire code of ethics that the nation is relying on their leader to keep. In reality, the Iran-Contra controversy is very much similar to the more recent scandal involving former-President Bill Clinton. During Clinton’s presidency, he committed adultery and then lied about it on national television, stating that he barely even knew the woman involved. While President Reagan didn’t commit a wrongdoing directly to his family-ties, he betrayed his country. This is indeed even more of a travesty then Clinton’s fouls, since the Iran-Contra ordeal impacts not just the United States, but also every other country that associates itself with America. If our top leader cannot keep his word, what does that say about the rest of the people in our country? Everyone is affected, businesses and individuals alike. No other nation would want to affiliate with a country of citizens that can’t hone up to the truth.
President Reagan may not have single-handedly placed the missiles in Iran’s possession, or handed the money directly over to the Contras, but he knew about what was going on, and he supported it when it was happening. On top of that, he lied about the scandal once it was discovered. He let everyone down and disgraced the United States of America. This alone is enough to tarnish the country. In addition, he was supported by multiple members of his administration, some of whom are still in office to this day. The crisis arises not because of a partisan desire to punish the President but because of the wildest fears that leadership and orderly governmental process have broken down (“Iran 1”, par. 1). Even though Congress and the Executive branch may debate and disagree, neither can afford to deceive the other (Cohen and Mitchell 310). If the lesson is not learned, we can expect similar trouble every time a President takes some critical action in foreign policy on his own and overreaches himself (Draper 598). If the President of the United States is not going to uphold the ethics of the Constitution, why should the citizens?
Works Cited
Brinkley, Joel. Arms to Iran Weren’t for Hostages, Reagan Says.” New York Times 4 Dec. 1987: 14-. LexisNexis. Reed Elsevier Inc., Bankier Library, Brookdale Community College, Lincroft, NJ. 1 Oct. 2006 .
Cohen, William S., and George J. Mitchell. Men of Zeal: A Candid Inside Story of the Iran-Contra Hearings. New York: Viking, 1988.
Draper, Theodore. A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affairs. New York: Hill and Wang, 1991.
Engelberg, Stephen. “The White House Crisis: President Will Not Be Called; Senators’ Panel May Subpoena 3 Ex-U.S. Aides.” New York Times 28 Nov. 1986: 1-. LexisNexis. Reed Elsevier Inc., Bankier Library, Brookdale Community College, Lincroft, NJ. 1 Oct. 2006 .
“Iran 1: What Needs to Be Known.” New York Times 14 Dec. 1986: 22-. LexisNexis. Reed Elsevier Inc., Bankier Library, Brookdale Community College, Lincroft, NJ. 1 Oct. 2006 .
“Pardons and commutations granted by President Bush.” U.S. Department of Justice. 1989-1993. U.S. Department of Justice. 8 Oct. 2006 .
Rosenbaum, David E. “The Nation; Iran-Contra Panels Find Fault, but Not in the System.” New York Times 22 Nov. 1987: 4-. LexisNexis. Reed Elsevier Inc., Bankier Library, Brookdale Community College, Lincroft, NJ. 1 Oct. 2006 .
“Unthinkable Pardons.” New York Times 25 Nov. 1987: 26-. LexisNexis. Reed Elsevier Inc., Bankier Library, Brookdale Community College, Lincroft, NJ. 1 Oct. 2006 .
